Local Government

Dennison code breach raises serious questions over common sense at County Hall

Published

2 months ago

May 26, 2026

Standards Committee finds Milford Haven councillor breached code despite claims he only helped another councillor complete paperwork

A PEMBROKESHIRE councillor has been found to have breached the Members’ Code of Conduct in a case which raises serious questions about proportionality, common sense, and the way standards complaints are pursued at County Hall.

Cllr Alan Dennison was found in breach by Pembrokeshire County Council’s Standards Committee on Tuesday (May 26) following a hearing into his involvement in a planning referral linked to Milford Haven businessman Lee Bridges.

The committee found that Cllr Dennison had no dispensation from the Standards Committee and had made a written representation in relation to the matter.

But the evidence heard during the hearing painted a far more nuanced picture than a simple case of a councillor using his position to influence a planning decision.

The central issue was a planning referral form relating to Mr Bridges’ business at the former Masonic Hall, also known commercially as the Imperial Hall, in Milford Haven.

Cllr Dennison’s case was that he did not act for Mr Bridges at all. He said he signed the document “pp” on behalf of Cllr Terry Davies, the elected local member, who was entitled to request that the matter be referred to committee.

“If Terry Davies had signed it himself, we would not be here today,” Cllr Dennison told the hearing.

He said the document belonged to Cllr Davies, not to him, and repeatedly argued that he should not have been before the committee.

“I rest that the document was signed for Terry Davies, and that I should not be sat here,” he said.

Mr Bridges supported that account. In a statement, he said the matter stemmed entirely from his request for Cllr Terry Davies to submit an appeal in his capacity as the elected member for the ward where the business is located.

He said Cllr Davies had been unable to complete the required paperwork within the allotted timeframe due to family circumstances and had sought assistance from Cllr Dennison, a fellow member of the same democratic group.

Mr Bridges said: “Councillor Dennison simply assisted in completing the paperwork and signed it on behalf of Councillor Davis with his authority.

“At no stage did Councillor Dennison have any involvement whatsoever in the decision-making process relating to the outcome of the matter in question. Consequently, there was no declarable interest requiring disclosure.”

That point goes to the heart of the controversy.

Cllr Dennison did not vote on the planning application. He did not sit on the committee deciding the outcome. He did not, on the evidence heard, have power to determine the application. His role, according to his case and Mr Bridges’ evidence, was limited to helping another councillor complete paperwork.

The Ombudsman’s case focused on Cllr Dennison’s links to Mr Bridges. The committee heard that he had previously provided a private loan to Mr Bridges’ business during Covid, which was later repaid; had briefly been recorded as a non-executive director; had gone on holiday to Mexico with Mr Bridges and their wives; and that Mr Bridges’ wife is godmother to Cllr Dennison’s grandson.

Mr Bridges accepted he and Cllr Dennison remained friends, but said he had not known him before taking on the lease of the premises.

He also stressed that Cllr Dennison had never been a shareholder, employee, or paid officer of his business.

“For transparency, I want it to be crystal clear,” Mr Bridges said. “I can confirm I am the sole and only shareholder of the business, and always have been.

“Councillor Dennison has never been a shareholder or an employee. He has never received any salary payments, dividends, or any other financial remuneration from the business at any time whatsoever.”

He said Cllr Dennison’s non-executive directorship had been temporary and linked to the Covid-era loan, which was repaid.

Mr Bridges said he felt “very aggrieved” for Cllr Dennison and believed he had been placed in this position for helping a fellow councillor who was unable to complete his responsibilities at the time.

Cllr Hugh Murphy also gave evidence supporting Cllr Dennison’s position.

He said: “I hold the belief that Mr Dennison is correct. If you sign a document pp, the owner of that document is in the name of the person, it is not Councillor Dennison.”

Cllr Murphy said his understanding was that only the local member could submit the planning delegation application, and that the local member in this case was Cllr Terry Davies.

He also questioned the circumstances in which Cllr Dennison spoke at a planning meeting, saying it had been “the chair’s decision to ask him to speak” and adding that he believed “the chair acted in error.”

Cllr Murphy also raised concerns about the way the case had been framed, saying the Ombudsman’s report made “great play” of the close personal relationship between Cllr Dennison and Mr Bridges.

He suggested the wider background involved political objections raised by other councillors. Cllr Dennison himself referred during the hearing to objections raised by Cllr Jacob Williams and the late Cllr Mike Stoddart, saying: “This is why we are here.”

Mr Stoddart was no political ally of Mr Bridges, who had stood against him in a recent council election.

Under questioning from David Gardner, appearing for the Ombudsman, Cllr Murphy was referred to a section of council procedure which provides for a deputy local member to be designated where a councillor is prevented from seeking a referral because of a personal and prejudicial interest or prolonged absence.

Cllr Murphy said he had not been advised that such a procedure was available.

“If a legal expert who knows the constitution informed me, then yes, we might have adopted that procedure,” he said.

He added that no officer had made him aware of that aspect of the planning delegation policy, which he said “might be a matter of regret.”

That exchange may prove one of the most important of the hearing. If a formal route existed for another councillor to act, why was that route not clearly pointed out at the time? And if officers accepted the form as submitted, is it fair to later treat the method of submission as a standards breach?

Cllr Dennison repeatedly complained that his corrections to the factual account had not been properly taken into account.

“No one is listening to my corrections,” he told the hearing.

At one point, he challenged the way the Ombudsman’s report described the building, saying the historic building was the Masonic Hall and that Imperial Hall was Mr Bridges’ trading name. The chair suggested the distinction was “semantics”, while the barrister said the impact was minimal.

Cllr Dennison responded that not taking his views into account was “not minimal”.

The committee ultimately found a breach on the basis that he had no dispensation and had made a written representation.

That is the formal finding.

But the wider public interest question remains whether this was a proportionate use of the standards regime.

On the evidence heard, this was not a case of a councillor voting in secret, making a planning decision for a friend, or financially benefiting from an outcome. It was a case about a councillor helping another councillor complete a form — a form the council accepted — in circumstances where the final decision would still rest with the proper planning process.

Mr Bridges described the case as “deeply concerning” and said it appeared to be “being used as part of what can only be perceived as a personal campaign against Councillor Dennison, seemingly designed to damage his reputation rather than address any genuine procedural wrongdoing.”

He also criticised the wider handling of the planning issue, saying it had been characterised by “excessive bureaucracy, inconsistency” and concerns about “transparency and fairness within County Hall.”

The committee decided to suspend Cllr Dennison as a councillor for a period of four months.

This sanction will not kick in until the end of any potential appeal process.

Community

Police warn Tenby Summer Spectacular is ‘a disaster waiting to happen’

Published

10 hours ago

July 12, 2026

Bruce Sinclair - Local Democracy Reporter

POLICE have warned that Tenby’s Summer Spectacular has become “a disaster waiting to happen”, amid concerns about overcrowding, crowd surges and restricted access for emergency services.

A decision on the future of the event’s premises licence is expected within days after Dyfed-Powys Police asked Pembrokeshire County Council’s licensing sub-committee to revoke the existing licence, arguing that it is no longer fit for purpose.

The two harbour-based spectaculars planned for August have already been provisionally cancelled by organisers Tenby Round Table following difficulties agreeing crowd-control arrangements with the council.

The annual events, which feature food, drink, live music and a popular fireworks display, have been a highlight of Tenby’s summer calendar for many years.

However, police told the licensing hearing that the event had grown beyond what could safely be accommodated at its current location.

A police representative said the harbour area should have a maximum capacity of around 1,600 people, but estimated crowds of approximately 3,000 had attended previous events.

The committee heard concerns that overcrowding could lead to crowd surging, while the limited number of escape routes could create serious difficulties during an emergency.

Police stressed that they were not opposed to the event itself, but said it had “evolved from a family event to a large-scale drinking environment”.

Concerns were also raised by the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust over emergency access, while Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service highlighted wider public safety risks.

Pembrokeshire County Council’s lead licensing officer, Geraint Griffiths, described the current arrangements as “very dangerous” and warned that any significant movement or surge within the crowd could have devastating consequences.

The premises licence covers Tenby Harbour car park and extends to the top of Penniless Cove Hill. The site includes a stage, stalls, refreshment stands and a bar selling alcoholic and soft drinks in cans.

Alcohol is currently sold under a temporary event notice rather than as a licensed activity included within the premises licence.

The open-air event is not fenced or ticketed, with visitors invited to make a voluntary donation on entry. People are also able to access the area from the harbour beach, an issue described during the hearing as one of the main obstacles to safely controlling numbers.

Tenby Round Table disputed some of the figures presented by the emergency services, saying several incidents referred to had not been directly connected to the Summer Spectacular.

Members said they had spent much of the past year trying to resolve questions surrounding access and crowd control.

A Round Table representative told the committee: “This year’s event has been cancelled. It arose from the sheer volume of people visiting Tenby, creating a question we have tried to get answered for the best part of a year.

“Without a clear answer, we couldn’t finish our licensing plan and couldn’t responsibly hold our events.”

The organisers previously said negotiations with Pembrokeshire County Council’s public realm department had failed to produce a clear and workable agreement allowing temporary restrictions on pedestrian access to the harbour and beach.

Without those restrictions, they said it would not be possible to legally or safely control crowd numbers.

Committee member Cllr Mark Carter suggested the event may have become “too successful” and could have outgrown its current location.

He described unrestricted access from the nearby beach as “the elephant in the room” and said any future proposal would need to include a robust plan for controlling entry.

Tenby Round Table said moving the main event elsewhere while retaining the traditional harbour fireworks display would present significant logistical challenges.

Councillors were presented with four options, including revoking the licence or allowing it to continue with amended conditions.

Committee chairman Cllr Tim Evans said members would consider the evidence before issuing a written decision, which is expected within five working days.

Local Government

New Pembroke Dock county councillor speaks after election win

Published

13 hours ago

July 12, 2026

Bruce Sinclair - Local Democracy Reporter

PEMBROKESHIRE’S new Conservative county councillor, who won a seven-way battle for the Pembroke Dock Market ward seat, has said he is “fully focussed on representing everyone in Market Ward and being a strong voice for Pembroke Dock”.

The seat was made vacant following the death of veteran councillor Brian Hall.

Before he passed away in April, Councillor Brian Hall had held the Pembroke Dock Market ward seat since 1996.

Since that seat became vacant, seven hopefuls put their names forward to represent the Market ward, with an election being held on July 9, the results announced the following morning.

The election for the ward, which has an electorate of 1,442 voters, saw a 28 per cent turnout.

Winner was Welsh Conservatives candidate Jamie Street with 143 votes, approximately 36 per cent of all votes cast.

Second place, with 100 votes, went to Independent candidate Claire Francis-Boswell, who can be commiserated by recently becoming a town council member for the very same ward.

Other candidates, and their share of the votes, were: Chloe Louise Richards, Plaid Cymru, 79 votes; Ryan Morgan, Reform UK, 48; Paul Haywood Dowson, Independent, 11; Lee Herring, Welsh Liberal Democrats, nine; Hayley Wood, Independent, seven.

Following his win, Jamie said: “I would like to sincerely thank everyone who placed their trust in me by voting in this election.

“It is a tremendous honour and a privilege to have been elected as the county councillor for the Market Ward, I will work hard to repay that confidence.

“I would also like to thank my fellow candidates for running a positive and respectful campaign.

“Now the campaign is over, I am fully focussed on representing everyone in Market Ward and being a strong voice for Pembroke Dock.

“Throughout the campaign I promised to listen to residents, stand up for our community and work tirelessly to secure the investment, opportunities and improvements our area deserves.

“I am eager to get started on the many issues you told me on the doorstep and will do everything I can to achieve the very best outcomes for local people.”

Business

Vodafone 5G plans at Haverfordwest building refused

Published

13 hours ago

July 12, 2026

Bruce Sinclair - Local Democracy Reporter

PLANS for 5G Vodafone telecommunications works at Haverfordwest’s telephone exchange have been refused on the grounds of the impact on the town’s conservation area.

In an application to Pembrokeshire County Council, Reading-based Cellnex UK, through agent WHP Telecoms Ltd sought permission for the installation of replacement telecommunications apparatus and ancillary equipment at Haverfordwest exchange on Perrotts Avenue.

The works proposed included the removal of the existing antenna and the installation of six antennas.

A supporting statement said the application for the rooftop of the existing three-storey Haverfordwest Telephone Exchange, was for a 5G mobile base station for the mobile network operator Vodafone Ltd in conjunction with Cornerstone; the site owned and operated by Cellnex UK, a radio site infrastructure provider.

It added: “The proposal seeks to upgrade the existing equipment in situ to ensure that Vodafone Ltd. customers continue to benefit from modern and reliable connectivity. The current equipment has not been upgraded for a number of years and now requires significant modernisation to support the latest wireless technologies and meet the needs of both customers and the wider community.”

It went on to say: “Unlike earlier generations of mobile connectivity, 5G has more significant technical and operational requirements and this has implications on the amount, height, position and design of the apparatus on the rooftop of this building.

“The service provided by the operator is in the public interest and is in very high demand, with 5G being the next and highly significant advancement in mobile connectivity. In the UK there are now more almost 92.5 million subscriptions to mobile networks and mobile services now exceed fixed landlines in terms of customer numbers and usage.”

An officer report recommending refusal said: “The siting and design of the development are considered to be insensitive, incongruous, and harmful to the character and appearance of the Haverfordwest Conservation Area. The proposal fails to preserve or enhance the significance of the designated heritage asset, contrary to the fundamental objectives of sustainable development.”

It added: “While the proposed masts are of a broadly comparable height to the previously approved [2007] installation, the current proposal materially differs in both form and visual impact. In particular, the introduction of three separate telecommunications masts to facilitate 5G infrastructure results in a more prominent and visually intrusive arrangement that is not considered to be subservient to the host building, unlike the previously approved tubed apparatus.”

The application was refused on grounds including the visual impact and no biodiversity enhancement measures included as part of the proposed scheme.